Ed Norholm needs to "get with the times." We live in a modern society, where women are empowered to be transgressors as surely as men.
Del Patron was found to be innocent of criminal wrongdoing, and Paige has no desire to pursue any civil relief over -any- of the alleged "incidents."
Nordholm is merely punishing someone for having a poor reputation -- i.e., for malicious lies said about them by other people -- not for anything that person actually did.
"Oh, but if Del Patron is -entirely- innocent, then why did he propose GFW suspend him?"
Source:
http://www.wrestlinginc.com/wi/news/...f-world-title/
Because Ed Nordholm's mind is made-up:
If anyone accuses you of domestic abuse, then you "must" be culpable -- even when you're not (and police agree with your side of the story, not Nordholm's assumption).
Alberto chose suspension because it was preferable to whatever -other- punishment Nordholm had in mind.
Imagine this conversation:
Ed Nordholm: "I've decided you're guilty."
Alberto Del Patron: "You're not the court of law. You're not even a criminal investigator, hombre!"
Nordholm: "It doesn't matter. You're in my company, so you play by -my- rules."
Del Patron: "*sigh* So, what's my punishment?"
Nordholm: "If Paige were in our company, I would have her pin you in a match. But because she's not, I'll book Rosemary to beat you instead. She and Paige both have a gothic vibe, you know, so the fans will get the message."
Del Patron: "How about you suspend me instead?"
Nordholm: "...Fine."
Del Patron: "(thinking silently) Whew, that was close! The marks would have an even harder time buying me as champ, if someone from the women's division -- jobbers, all of them! -- were to somehow beat the top guy in their company."
I'm glad that at least the cops in Miami are treating women and men equitably in their domestic-abuse investigations.
I've heard outrageous stories, mostly in less-cosmopolitan regions, where police tend to presume "guilty until proven innocent."
(As Ed Nordholm apparently does, what with
Del Patron's criminal exoneration apparently proving nothing to Nordholm.)
